Filetype PDF | Posted on 23 Jan 2023 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
249x Filetype PDF File size 1.05 MB Source: en.rmbs.ruc.edu.cn
Received: 30 November 2016 Revised: 14 April 2018 Accepted: 30 April 2018
DOI: 10.1002/job.2296
THEJOBANNUALREVIEW
Shared leadership: A state‐of‐the‐art review and future
research agenda
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Jinlong Zhu * Zhenyu Liao * Kai Chi Yam Russell E. Johnson
1School of Business, Renmin University of
China, Beijing, China Summary
2Olin Business School, Washington University Thetraditional “great man” approaches to leadership emphasize qualities of individual
in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A. leaders for leadership success. In contrast, a rapidly growing body of research has
3Department of Management and
Organization, National University of started to examine shared leadership, which is broadly defined as an emergent team
Singapore, Singapore phenomenon whereby leadership roles and influence are distributed among team
4Department of Management, Michigan State members. Despite the progress, however, the extant literature on shared leadership
University, East Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A.
Correspondence has been fragmented with a variety of conceptualizations and operationalizations.
Jinlong Zhu, School of Business, Renmin This has resulted in little consensus regarding a suitable overarching theoretical
University of China, No. 59 Zhongguancun framework and has undermined developing knowledge in this research domain. To
Street, Beijing 100872, P.R. China.
Email: zhujinlong@rmbs.ruc.edu.cn redress these problems, we provide a comprehensive review of the growing literature
Zhenyu Liao, Olin Business School, of shared leadership by (a) clarifying the definition of shared leadership; (b) conceptu-
Washington University in St. Louis. One ally disentangling shared leadership from other theoretically overlapping constructs;
Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Email: z.liao@wustl.edu (c) addressing measurement issues; and (d) developing an integrative framework of
Funding information the antecedents, proximal and distal consequences, and boundary conditions of
Singapore Ministry of Education Research shared leadership. We end our review by highlighting several new avenues for future
Grant Academic Research Fund Tier 1, Grant/
Award Number: R‐317‐000‐132‐115; research.
Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region, China, Grant/ KEYWORDS
Award Number: GRF Project Code ‐ LU
13500817 framework, measurement, review, shared leadership, teams
1 | INTRODUCTION that focus on the leadership role of formal appointed leaders, shared
leadership highlights the agentic role of team members in team leading
Increasingly, work teams distribute functional leadership roles to processes (Carson et al., 2007; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Pearce &
members in areas in which those members have requisite talent Conger, 2003). In particular, accumulated evidence suggests that
(Goldsmith, 2010; Pearce, 2004; D. Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, shared leadership plays a promising role in increasing team effective-
2014). Recognizing this trend, leadership scholars have started to shift ness (e.g., O'Toole, Galbraith, & Lawler, 2002; Pearce, Manz, & Sims
their focus from a top‐down vertical influence process to a horizontal Jr, 2009; D. Wang et al., 2014). As such, shared leadership is an
and shared leading process among team members (Carson, Tesluk, & intriguing new field that enriches our understanding of leadership
Marrone, 2007; Denis, Langley, & Sergi, 2012; Lord, Day, Zaccaro, and shifts the leadership paradigm from viewing leadership as a prop-
Avolio, & Eagly, 2017). Shared leadership, defined as an emergent team erty of the individual to viewing leadership as a property of the collec-
phenomenon whereby leadership roles and influence are distributed tive (Cullen‐Lester & Yammarino, 2016).
amongteammembers(Carsonetal., 2007), has received considerable Although research on shared leadership has burgeoned recently,
attention in an array of academic disciplines, including industrial and the extant literature is fragmented in two important ways. First,
organizational psychology, organizational behavior, strategic manage- various definitions and corresponding measures across studies lead
ment, and entrepreneurship. Differing from other leadership theories to low consensus in shared leadership research. Indeed, D'Innocenzo,
Mathieu, and Kukenberger (2016, p. 1965) noted that “the literature
* has become quite disjointed with a proliferation of nomenclature
Jinlong Zhu and Zhenyu Liao share first authorship on this work.
834 Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job J Organ Behav. 2018;39:834–852.
ZHUET AL. 835
and conceptualizations.” To date, there is no unified conceptualization Withtheaimofdevelopinganagendaforfutureresearch,wepro-
regarding what shared leadership is and no unified theoretical frame- vide a thorough qualitative review of shared leadership research. By
workthatexplainstheemergenceandconsequencesofsharedleader- doing so, we contribute to the development of shared leadership
ship. Researchers have proposed several definitions, resulting in research in four important ways. First, given the numerous definitions
different interpretations of shared leadership and the corresponding of shared leadership (Carson et al., 2007; Yammarino et al., 2012), we
measures (Carson et al., 2007; Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; review shared leadership definitions, identify the developmental
D'Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nicolaides et al., 2014; D. Wang et al., history and key characteristics of shared leadership, and distinguish
2014). For example, some definitions focus on the number of people it from other theoretically overlapping leadership constructs such as
involved in leadership activities to distinguish shared leadership with emergent leadership, self‐leadership, empowering leadership, partici-
traditional leadership. These definitions highlight the collective pative leadership, and team leadership. Building on this work, we
engagement in team leadership in contrast with the engagement of a endeavor to reduce current confusion regarding the shared leadership
single leader (e.g., Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006). Some definitions construct and provide suggestions for its conceptualization. Second,
focus on the source of leadership influence. Specifically, shared lead- by reviewing the existing measures of shared leadership and evaluat-
ership involves horizontal, lateral influence among team members, ing their respective strengths and weaknesses, we recommend some
whichis in contrast with the traditional top‐down leadership influence theoretically coherent measures for future empirical research. Third,
derived from a formal position with entitled power and status (e.g., we present an overarching framework that summarizes the anteced-
Pearce & Sims, 2002). Accordingly, researchers operationalized shared ents, proximal and distal consequences, and boundary conditions of
leadership distinctively. Some of them focus on measuring the extent shared leadership, noting issues such as theoretical perspectives and
to which team members collectively engage in leadership behaviors types of teams. Such a comprehensive framework has both theoretical
(e.g., Avolio, Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Jung, & Garger, 2003; Pearce and empirical significance because it provides a roadmap of where we
& Ensley, 2004), while others intend to capture the extent to which are and where to start from for the advancement of shared leadership
leadership is decentralized (e.g., Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Robertson, research. Fourth, we discuss insights from our review and systemati-
2006). Such various definitions and measures likely cause a significant cally propose a series of potential future research directions.
difference in the effect size that shared leadership has on the same
team outcome across studies (D'Innocenzo et al., 2016). Hoch and
Kozlowski (2014, p. 393) therefore pointed out that “a challenge fac- 2 | UNDERSTANDINGANDDEFINING
ing researchers is determining how to measure shared leadership.” SHAREDLEADERSHIP
Second, although some researchers have quantitatively reviewed
extant studies on shared leadership (e.g., D'Innocenzo et al., 2016; Historically, researchers have conceptualized leadership as a down-
Nicolaides et al., 2014; D. Wang et al., 2014), our knowledge of the ward hierarchical influence process derived from a single individual
antecedents, consequences, and boundary conditions of shared lead- within work teams—the formal leader. Conventional leadership
ership remains fragmented due to the lack of an overarching frame- research has mostly considered how one leader influences followers
work that depicts the general stream of research on shared in a team or organization (Bass & Bass, 2008; Bolden, 2011; Pearce
leadership. The approach of meta‐analysis is limited in that it only con- & Conger, 2003). This hierarchical, leader‐centric paradigm has been
siders variables that have been examined in multiple samples. To date, a prominent feature in the leadership literature for many decades
meta‐analyses (e.g., D'Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nicolaides et al., 2014; (Bass & Bass, 2008; Pearce, Hoch, Jeppesen, & Wegge, 2010).
1
D. Wang et al., 2014) have been limited to examining the relationship Nevertheless, since the 1990s, a growing number of scholars have
of shared leadership with a single outcome—team performance—and, challenged the conventional conceptualization of leadership by argu-
in one case (Nicolaides et al., 2014), a single mediating mechanism of ing that leadership can also be shared among members of a group
this relation—team confidence. Contrary to this narrow focus, though, (Carson et al., 2007; Pearce & Sims, 2002). With this approach to team
dozens of studies on shared leadership have been conducted, and leadership, team members exert leadership influence and provide
many of them include unique outcomes and mediators. Because guidance to one another as needed (Carson et al., 2007). For example,
shared leadership research is still emerging and a substantial body of team members skilled in a specialized area might engage in leadership
empirical research has investigated various antecedents and conse- behavior in that domain, while adopting the role of follower in other
quencesofsharedleadershipsporadically, a comprehensive qualitative domains (Manz, Skaggs, Pearce, & Wassenaar, 2015; Meuser et al.,
review is valuable for capturing this growing area of research more 2016).
effectively and for identifying important research directions. Despite
of some brief qualitative summaries of shared leadership embeded in
broader leadership reviews (e.g., Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; 2.1 | Definitions of shared leadership
Day et al., 2004; Denis et al., 2012; Lord et al., 2017; Yammarino, AsshowninTable1,sharedleadershiphasbeenconceptualizedin dif-
Salas, Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, 2012), so far, we still lack a com- ferent ways (e.g., Carson et al., 2007; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Pearce &
prehensive review that synthesizes the factors that contribute to
1Although the concept of shared leadership is rooted in earlier works (see
howsharedleadership emerges, why and how shared leadership influ-
Follett, 1924; Gibb, 1954; Katz & Kahn, 1978), this perspective has become
ences team processes, and what boundary conditions shape the more prominent in contemporary leadership theories and research from the
effects of shared leadership. mid‐1990s onward (Avolio et al., 1996; Seers, 1996).
836 ZHUETAL.
TABLE 1 Representative definitions of shared leadership
Articulated the three
References Definitions key characteristics Additional components
Pearce and Sims (2002) Distributed influence from within the team. (p. 172) 1, 2, 3
Lateral influence among peers. (p. 176)
Sivasubramaniam et al. (2002) Collective influence of members in a team on each 1, 2, 3
other. (p. 68)
Erez et al. (2002) Leadership can be shared over time whereby team 1, 2, 3 Aleadership role shifts among
members share (albeit not at once) in responsibilities team members over time
involved in the leadership role … by clarifying who
is to perform specific role behaviors (i.e., leader and
member). (pp. 933–934)
Pearce and Conger (2003; the Adynamic, interactive influence process among 1, 2, 3
most widely cited definition) individuals in groups for which the objective is to
lead one another to the achievement of group or
organizational goals or both. (p. 1)
Pearce et al. (2004) Simultaneous, ongoing, mutual influence process 1, 2, 3 “Serial emergence” of leaders
within
a team that is characterized by “serial emergence”
of official as well as unofficial leaders. p. 48)
Ensley et al. (2006) Ateam process where leadership is carried out by the 1, 2
team as a whole, rather than solely by a single
designated individual. (p. 220)
Mehra et al. (2006) Shared, distributed phenomenon in which there can be 2, 3
several (formally appointed and/or emergent)
leaders. (p. 233)
Hiller et al. (2006) The epicenter of collective leadership is not the role of 1, 2, 3
a formal leader but the interaction of team members
to lead the team by sharing in leadership
responsibilities. (p. 388)
Carson et al. (2007) An emergent team property that results from the 1, 2, 3
distribution of leadership influence across multiple
team members. (p. 1218)
Avolio, Walumbwa, and Shared leadership: an emergent state where team 1, 2, 3
Weber, 2009 members collectively lead each other. (p. 431)
Pearce et al. (2010) Shared leadership occurs when group members 1, 2, 3 intentionally shift the role of leader
actively and intentionally shift the role of leader to to one another as necessitated
one another as necessitated by the environment or
circumstances in which he group operates. (p. 151)
Gupta, Huang, and Yayla (2011) Team's capability for collectively engaging in 1, 2 Content is transformational
transformational leadership behaviors; leadership leadership
as a collective process, such that the teaminfluences,
inspires, and motivates team members. (p. 32)
M. A. Drescher et al. (2014) An emergent property of a group where leadership 1, 2, 3
functions are distributed among group members.
(p. 772)
Nicolaides et al. (2014) Aset of interactive influence processes in which team 1, 2, 3 team leadership functions are
leadership functions are voluntarily shared among voluntarily shared
internal team members in the pursuit of team
goals. (p. 924)
D. Wang et al. (2014) An emergent team property of mutual influence and 1, 2, 3
shared responsibility among team members,
whereby they lead each other toward goal
achievement. (p. 181)
D'Innocenzo et al. (2016) Anemergentanddynamicteamphenomenonwhereby 1, 2, 3
leadership roles and influence are distributed among
team members. (p. 5)
Meuser et al. (2016) Aform of leadership that is distributed and shared 1, 2, 3
among multiple participating individuals, rather than
being produced by a single individual. (p. 1390)
Chiu et al. (2016) Agroup‐level phenomenon generated from reciprocal 1, 2, 3
reliance and shared influence among team members
so as to achieve team goals. (p. 1705)
Lord et al. (2017) Shared leadership can be viewed in terms of how 2, 3 Leader and follower roles shifts
different individuals enact leader and follower roles among individuals over time
at different points in time. (p. 444)
Note. The three key characteristics are (1) lateral influence among peers, (2) an emergent team phenomenon, and (3) leadership roles and influence are dis-
persed across team members.
ZHUET AL. 837
Conger,2003;D.Wangetal.,2014;Yammarinoetal.,2012).Forexam- collective (Carson et al., 2007). Whereas the first characteristic indi-
ple, Pearce and Conger (2003, p. 1) described shared leadership as “a cates that team members are the source of leadership influence, the
dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in groups for second characteristic indicates that leadership influence does not
whichtheobjectiveistoleadoneanothertotheachievementofgroup reside in the formal leader nor individual team members, but rather
or organizational goals or both.” Ensley et al. (2006, p. 220) defined it is shared among members collectively at the group level. That is,
shared leadership as “a team process where leadership is carried out shared leadership focuses on the pooled leadership influence of all
bytheteamasawhole,ratherthansolelybyasingledesignatedindivid- team members (Carson et al., 2007). Sivasubramanim and colleagues
ual.” Carson et al. (2007, p. 1218) defined shared leadership as “an (2002), for instance, noted that shared leadership focuses on the influ-
emergentteampropertythatresultsfromthedistributionofleadership ence of the group as opposed to one or a few individuals. Likewise,
influence across multiple team members.” Chiu, Owens, and Tesluk Carson et al. (2007) emphasized that shared leadership is an emergent
(2016, p. 1705) defined shared leadership as “a group‐level phenome- property of a group. Accordingly, shared leadership should be ana-
non generated from reciprocal reliance and shared influence among lyzed at the group level rather than at the individual level, and the ref-
teammemberssoastoachieveteamgoals.” erent of leadership must shift from an individual to the group (Avolio
Across these different conceptualizations of shared leadership, et al., 2003).
there are three key commonalities: (a) Shared leadership is about lat- The third characteristic focuses on the distribution of influence in
eral influence among peers, (b) shared leadership is an emergent team the team leadership structure. Compared with a leadership structure
phenomenon, and (c) leadership roles and influence are dispersed in which leadership is centralized around one leader, shared leadership
across teammembers(seeTable2;Carsonetal.,2007;M.A.Drescher, entails the view that leadership influence is “broadly distributed”
Korsgaard, Welpe, Picot, & Wigand, 2014; Pearce & Conger, 2003). across team members (Carson et al., 2007; Meuser et al., 2016). For
The first characteristic, lateral influence among peers, is pertinent example, Meuser et al. (2016, p. 1390) defined shared leadership as
to the source of leadership influence. In work teams, there are two “a form of leadership that is distributed and shared among multiple
important sources of team leadership. One is vertical leadership stem- participating individuals, rather than being produced by a single
ming from the formal team leader, and the other is shared leadership individual.” While the first two characteristics indicate that shared
stemming from team members (Locke, 2003; Nicolaides et al., 2014). leadership focuses on leadership influence from all team members,
Specifically, compared with the top‐down influence of vertical leader- the third characteristic further describes how leadership influence is
ship from a single formal team leader, shared leadership focuses on distributed among team members, that is, leadership is dispersed
the influence of horizontal, lateral leadership from team members widely across team members. These three characteristics collectively
(Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Pearce & Conger, 2003). For capture the inherent nature of shared leadership. Based on these
example, Pearce and Sims (2002, p. 176) regarded shared leadership characteristics, we define shared leadership as an emergent team
as “lateral influence among peers.” Hiller, Day, and Vance (2006) phenomenon whereby leadership roles and influence are distributed
emphasized that the epicenter of shared leadership is not the role of among team members.
a formal leader but the interaction of team members during the team In addition to the above commonalities, the existing definitions of
leading processes. It is worth noting that scholars have emphasized shared leadership also diverge in two important respects regarding
that shared leadership is not an alternative to vertical leadership; what constitutes shared leadership. First, the extent to which the
rather, both sources of team leadership are important and can operate three characteristics of shared leadership are reflected in the
in tandem, and thus, they should be studied in tandem (Carson et al., definition differs. Some definitions highlight the first and second
2007; Denis et al., 2012; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). For example, Ensley characteristics (e.g., Ensley et al., 2006; Gupta et al., 2011), whereas
et al. (2006) found that both vertical leadership and shared leadership other definitions highlight the second and third characteristics (e.g.,
were significant predictors of new venture performance. Mehra et al., 2006; Pearce et al., 2010). Second, as summarized in
The second characteristic is pertinent to the unit of analysis Table 1, some definitions add assumptions or additional requirements.
(Hernandez, Eberly, Avolio, & Johnson, 2011). In contrast to traditional For example, Erez, Lepine, and Elms (2002) added the requirement
leadership as a phenomenon derived from a single individual, shared that a leadership role shifts among team members over time. Gupta
leadership highlights leadership as an emergent property of a and colleagues (2011) restricted the content of shared leadership to
TABLE 2 Key characteristics of shared leadership
Sample
Perspectives Key characteristics of shared leadership The opposite conditions references
Source of leadership Horizontal, lateral leadership influence among peers Vertical leadership influence from Pearce and Conger (2003)
influence where team members take on the functions of a designated or elected leader Pearce and Sims (2002)
leadership traditionally handled by a designated
or elected leader
Unit of analysis Views leadership as an emergent group‐level Views leadership as an individual Carson et al. (2007)
(leadership at the phenomenon action Chiu et al. (2016)
collective level)
Distribution of Leadership influence or roles are dispersed widely Leadership influence or roles are Carson et al. (2007)
leadership influence across team members centralized around a few M. A. Drescher et al. (2014)
individuals
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
